Friday, September 16, 2011

Update 19 Sept 2011 - The Lib Dem Motion "Protecting Individuals and Communities from Drug Harms" was passed by conference, and is therefore now Lib Dem Party policy. Watch the full conference debate you tube here.

The Lib Dems have long held the most reasonable, evidence based drug policy of the three biggest UK parties, and if passed, their latest drugs motion would build on that history in grand style. At its heart is a call for a rather dull sounding “Impact Assessment” of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA) by an independent panel, to compare all the costs and benefits of the current approach to drugs with alternatives, such as Portuguese style decriminalisation of possession, and models of legal regulation including for cannabis, and Swiss-style heroin prescription. This is an eminently sensible approach that would allow future drug policy to be based on evidence of what works, rather than political rhetoric or tabloid fever.

But make no mistake – it would be truly groundbreaking. Firstly, none of the many previous reviews of drug policy have done this kind of comprehensive comparison. (In the US, the Drug Czar’s Office is actually banned from doing research that might show benefits from legal regulation.) Secondly, it would also be far harder to ignore because it would have been Government initiated, originate from Lib Dem Party Policy, and be of huge public interest, like the recent Banking Review.

Yet an Impact Assessment of this kind is not radical - it is the gold-standard approach for assessing public policy the world over. In fact, if the Misuse of Drugs Act were introduced today it would be required to have one carried out on it in advance of enactment, and after 3-5 years to see if it is actually doing what it was intended to.

This has been a requirement for all Acts of Parliament since 2005 for the very good reason that laws often have unintended consequences, and it makes sense to assess whether they outweigh the benefits. And if there is one thing everyone agrees about in drug policy it is that the MDA (and similar legislation in other countries) was not intended to create a huge criminal market; undermine international development and security; increase health harms including HIV/AIDS; promote stigma and discrimination; lead to deforestation and pollution, and undermine human rights all over the globe (see countthecosts.org for details). Yet even the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which oversees the system of global prohibition, acknowledges it has created all these ‘unintended consequences’.

Would such an Impact Assessment be possible? Despite what the current and last Government have said, yes it would be – which is why the European Commission is starting one looking at different approaches to controlling new synthetic drugs - so-called ‘legal highs’. What if there are gaps in the research base? Then one of the key things an IA can do is identify them and provide guidance in prioritising which gaps should be filled first, and which are not crucial to forming an overall conclusion. That is why an Impact Assessment approach is endorsed by a range of NGOs and academics from various sectors affected by drug policy, and politicians from all parties, including the Conservative Peer and Professor of Government Lord Norton, who was the prime mover in making Impact Assessments obligatory for all new Acts. Impact Assessments may not make for great sound bites or lurid tabloid headlines, but they do result in better policy, and at a time of severe cuts, there is a pressing need to ensure all public spending is as effective as possible.

This motion is also timely. Globally, the tide has turned, and ever more prominent statesmen and women are calling for an end to the failed war on drugs and its replacement with models of legal regulation based on science, public health and human rights principles. Those voices now include the former Secretary-General of the UN Kofi Annan, seven former Presidents including of the US, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras and Switzerland, and the current Prime Minister of Greece, not to mention senior doctors, police, academics and religious leaders. In response, the Tory and Labour frontbenches continue shouting; “Drugs are bad for you, ban them” whilst refusing to explore different approaches – even when shown to work in other countries. That is not principled leadership, and looks increasingly irresponsible.

The Lib Dem motion is only part of a much broader, growing global campaign for a full review of the War on Drugs, and all the alternatives. The War on Drugs: Count the Costs project (www.countthecosts.org) was launched this year to mark the 50th Anniversary of the UN Convention that underpins the current approach. It is bringing together groups and individuals from every sector affected by drugs, and every region. We might have a range of views on what we should do about drugs, but we share a commitment to make the world a safer, healthier place. As a result we also share one simple aim – let’s count the costs of the war on drugs and explore the alternatives, so we can base drug policy on evidence of what works. And an Impact Assessment of the UK Misuse of Drugs Act would be an excellent place to start.

3 comments:

Good write up but let's insist that instead of the 'war on drugs' expression we make it clear that this is a war on some drug users, call it a war on some drug users even if it's not as snappy. My only other gripe with the write up is the complaint about the MDA when we must talk about the ADMINISTRATION of it - otherwise we are letting govt off the hook for just applying the law, it isn't the Act that's at fault, it's what they are doing with it.

My other concern not mentioned in your blog is that the lib dems want to make the issue a medicalisation matter and not a criminal one - whilst this makes perfect sense for hard core drug misusers such as heroin misuse and your average heavy drinker, this would be a very unwelcome development for most drug users and the movement for liberty in my view. I watched a programme the other day about how gays were treated in the US and it was truly shocking, yet the scariest development was when they tried to bring in a 'mad not bad' psychiatric approach. I imagine I would, if I were a controlled drug user, be more wary of Ewan's 'we can help you' (straight jacket and electrodes well hidden) approach then the brutes who will smash down the door. Where has the notion of liberty gone in all of this?

The only Lib Dems that matter are the 50 or so who can vote in the house of commons and they'll never go for this, they will never vote to make drug policies more sensible regardless of any motions passed in their conference and promises in their manifesto or any commitments they themselves have made.

Changing the status quo is always risky and the three big UK parties don't do risk, especially not the Lib Dems. They just want to keep their seats and keep things how they are as that is what benefits them.

This blog has many contributors; blog entries or comments posted to blog are not necessarily the views of Transform Drug Policy Foundation. For official comment or position statements on any given topic, or with any feedback or queries, please contact Transform. Transform Drug Policy Foundation is a registered charity No. 1100518